"It is not our job as Catholics to tell God what we
should do. It is our job to learn and
follow his teachings. Conscience is not
convenience. We must enforce the laws of God." Rep. Tim Murphy, Republican
of Pennsylvania, having ascertained that the supreme deity is male, explained
why Congress should deprive the employees of Catholic schools, hospitals and
charities of the right to purchase affordable birth control, regardless of the
employees' own beliefs or practices. The hearing of the Health Subcommittee of the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce took place on Wednesday, November 2, 2011.
Republicans in Congress are truly on the warpath against
women's rights, and in many cases against reason.
Just a few points here about women and contraception. For starters, while it usually takes two to
conceive a child, only women get pregnant. The right and ability to make
independent decisions about whether and when to become a parent are fundamental
to every other aspect of a woman's life: whether society recognizes women as
autonomous, independent, responsible and competent; and whether women
themselves experience the same opportunities as men to acquire education and
employment, and to construct a meaningful life based on loving relationships.
Cost is a barrier to purchasing birth control for
lower-income women. More effective forms
like new, safe intrauterine devices (IUDs) cost more than birth control pills
or devices like diaphragms that can be bought in smaller, cheaper quantities, but
also are less reliable. The rate of unintended pregnancies is soaring among
low-income women, and at 132 per thousand (women aged 15-44) is 5 times higher
than the rate for higher income women (those over 200% of poverty). Low income women are more likely to have
unplanned births. The costs of contraception are minute compared to the costs
of pregnancy and delivery, in dollars as well as in human health.
The new health reform law, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), calls
for covering preventive health care services without requiring copayments,
effective in 2010. Copayments are fees
individuals must pay when they go for care, in addition to their premiums, and
are intended to discourage health care visits.
The problem is that they discourage people from getting care they need,
particularly low-income people.
Preventive health care services like flu shots can protect health by
avoiding illnesses entirely or catching them early, and also save money. The
ACA eliminated these copayments for prevention.
Except in the case of contraception.
In 1968, despite the recommendation of the majority of
Catholic bishops, the Pope adopted the minority recommendation to declare that
using birth control was inconsistent with the Church's beliefs. Nevertheless, U.S. Catholics continue to use
birth control, to the same extent as other Americans. The U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops has grown increasingly insistent on enforcing the birth
control ban.
Virtually all heterosexually active couples in the U.S.
of child-bearing age use birth control at times, including Catholics.
As of August, 2011, after a year of studying whether or not
contraception is a preventive health care service, the federal Department of
Health and Human Services ruled that birth control would count as a preventive
health care service.
In covering contraception as a preventive service without
copayments, HHS granted an exception for
actual churches who provide health insurance to their employees, but required
all other religiously sponsored institutions such as hospitals that offer
health benefits to follow the rule.
Catholic organizations have gone to court in the past to
avoid state rules that require including coverage for birth control in the
health care plans they provide for employees, and failed every time. The Church sponsors large organizations
including health care providers, universities and social service agencies, as
well as churches. They employ millions of Americans, many of whom are not Catholic.
Their work generates the funds their employers use to pay for health
insurance. Most economists assert that
the costs of employee health benefits are reflected in lower pay; that is,
employers calculate benefits as a form of compensation, and many reduce wages
accordingly. In effect, the money that
pays for health insurance is really money that employees generate, and belongs
to them.
Not good enough for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
and the extremist Republicans running Congress.
While dire economic threats face many Americans, Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania
decided to change the subject. He called
a hearing entitled “Do New Health Law Mandates Threaten Conscience Rights and
Access to Care?” [http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Health/110211/Memo.pdf]
Now let's be very clear here. The Republicans and the Bishops are claiming
that institutions have a conscience. Not
a policy. A conscience.
Here is Joe Pitts' description of his concern [and my
comments in brackets]:
"Many
entities feel that it [the proposed policy] is inadequate and violates their
conscience rights by forcing them to provide coverage for services for which
they have a moral or ethical objection. The religious employer exemption
allowed under the preventive services rule -- at the discretion of the HRSA
[Health Resources Services Agency] -- is very narrow.
"And
the definition offers no conscience protection to individuals," [there is
no involvement of any individual employer in this matter, or any issue of an
individual's conscience except that of employees deciding to purchase and use
contraceptives] "schools, hospitals, or charities that hire or serve
people of all faiths in their communities. It is ironic that the proponents of
the health care law talked about the need to expand access to services but the
administration issues rules that could force providers to stop seeing patients
because to do so could violate the core tenants of their religion." [The rule requires employers' health plans to
cover contraception without any additional copayment. There are three parties involved here:
employers, employees, and health plans.
No provider or caregiver is involved, nor is any patient, student, or
recipient of charity. At the most extreme, every Catholic institution could
claim it will close their doors absent this exclusion. So far no such institution has done so where
state requirements are in effect, and when Rep. Jan Schakowsky asked representatives
of Catholic institutions at the hearing if they would close, they affirmed that
they would not.]
Rep. Gingrey, GA, opined: "Imposing the dictates of the
state on the will of employers sounds un-American to me."
And another gem: "Should we force religious employers
to violate their consciences? To
recognize same-sex marriage? Will we
ethically neuter health care professionals?"
Articulate Democrats on the committee - Henry Waxman, Frank
Pallone, John Dingell, Lois Capps, Tammy Baldwin, Jan Schakowsky, Edolphus
Towns, Eliot Engel - to a person
challenged this tripe.
Tammy Baldwin: "This is a war on women."
Lois Capps: "An employer is not a person. Your boss'
conscience is not your own."
Witnesses Jon O'Brien of Catholics for Choice and Dr. Steve
Hathaway were articulate and brilliant in defending the truth.
But Rep. Tim Murphy, a psychologist in his fifth term in the
House, was on fire:
"Conscience is at the core of Catholic teachings... and
it is not left up to individuals to decide, thank goodness. Father Anthony
Fisher tells us that ...there is an objective standard of moral conduct. Vatican II teaches us that the moral
character of actions is determined by objective criteria, not merely by the
sincerity of intentions or the goodness of motives. It is not, I repeat, it is
not our duty as Catholics to tell God what he should do or what image he should
adhere to, or what he should think, but it's up to us to shape our conscience
to conform with the teachings he's given us.
"Conscience, sir, is not convenience.
"Conscience is formed through prayer, attention to the
sacred and adherence to the teachings of the church, and the authority of
Christ's teachings in the church. So
asking a group in a survey whether or not they have ever acted or thought of
acting in a certain way that runs counter to the Church's teachings is no more
a moral code than asking people if they ever drove over the speed limit as a
foundation for eliminating all traffic laws.
"I end with a quote from John Adams, in 1776, when he
was writing our Declaration of Independence of the United States: 'It is the duty of all men in society,
publicly and at stated seasons to worship the creator and preserver of the
universe, and no subject shall be hurt, molested or constrained from
worshipping God in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own
conscience, or for religious profession or sentiments, provided he does not
disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.' The
foundation of our nation is not to impose laws that restrict a person's ability
to practice their faith, sir."
Well, actually, Tim: Exactly.
